Tag Archives: Stephen Coughlin

UTT Throwback Thursday: Will the Present Remain the Past?

Posted on by
Reply

Understanding the Threat, by John Guandoo, January 25, 2017:

Stephen Coughlin arguably understands the enemy threat doctrine and how our enemy is strategically operating at a global level better than anyone else in America.

scc

In 2008, Coughlin – an attorney with an expertise in international law and a Major in the U.S. Army (reserves) specializing in intelligence and strategic communications – was called to the Pentagon after 9/11 and worked as a contractor for the Directorate for Intelligence at the Pentagon under the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Peter Pace (USMC) as the Islamic Law expert for the Department of Defense.

A muslim named Hesham Islam, a senior advisor to then Deputy Secretary of Defense Gordon England, worked behind the scenes to ensure Mr. Coughlin’s contract was not renewed because his message “offended” muslims (read: Jihadis in suits) like Hesham Islam on the inside.

Deputy SecDef Gordon England (center) with his advisor Hesham Islam (right)

Deputy SecDef Gordon England (center) with his advisor Hesham Islam (right)

It should be noted that no one in Stephen Coughlin’s chain of command denied the veracity of his message.

And what was Coughlin’s message?  That in order to create strategies for victory against our Islamic enemy we must begin all analysis with who the enemy is and why the enemy says he fights us.  In doing so, we would actually focus on sharia (Islamic Law) as the basis for why the enemy acts, and realize Al Qaeda and ISIS are correctly quoting Islamic Law in furtherance of their actions.

The bulk of Mr. Coughlin’s work is captured in his book Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

It could be argued the work of Stephen Coughlin was the spark that ignited the counter-jihad movement in the United States.

So where is Stephen Coughlin today?  Is he inside the national security team in the White House?  Has he been brought in to develop the counter-strategy to the Global Islamic Movement at the National Security Council?

No.

So who is the subject matter expert on Islamic doctrine, sharia, and the Global Islamic Movement which the President says he wants to “eradicate?”

That is a good question.

While the President’s actions over the last four days will have a significant impact on the Islamic threat to the United States, the domestic strategy to uproot and destroy the Muslim Brotherhood’s network here at home requires a deep understanding of their leadership, modus operandi, and anticipated response to any actions taken against them.  It is not enough to have a nationwide arrest plan for the top ten Muslim Brotherhood organizations and their leaders and call it a day.

Any and all actions taken at the federal, state, and/or local level must be preceded by and coordinated with a significant messaging campaign so Americans will have a deeper understanding of the threat and why actions are being taken.  State and local law enforcement in this nation are not prepared to confront the massive jihadi network which is preparing for battle and need to be trained quickly on the threat and how to deal with it at the local level.

The Muslim Brotherhood has been in the United States for over 50 years and has insinuated itself into many areas of our society, including our FBI, CIA, political establishment, local/state police, and across the social spectrum.

Their’s is primarily an influence operation.  It is political warfare and espionage.  It is counterintelligence.

When senior U.S. government officials in the new administration say they have confidence in people being chosen to fill staff and intelligence positions inside DHS, the national security staffs, and elsewhere because the candidates are “undergoing FBI background checks,” this is a tacit admission there is still a significant lack of understanding of this enemy and how they operate inside our system.

It also indicates the lack of comprehension of how broken the FBI is at this point.

It is clear President Trump has good instincts when it comes to evaluating the Islamic threat.  However, a strategy for victory will require a much greater understanding of the threat than that.  Men like Stephen Coughlin need to be a part of creating that strategy.

Fake news and MSM deception example 247698-b9E AP News

Posted on by
Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Clockwise from top left: Brittany Covington, Tanishia Covington, Tesfaye Cooper and Jordan Hill. (Chicago Police)

Vlad Tepes blog, January 5, 2017 by Eeyore

According to this site, there are four kinds of lies.

Falsification, exaggeration, omission, equivocation.

Today, AP News provided us with a magnificent example of lie by omission.

First, for those that missed it, you may want to look at a story Nash Montana posted last night here at Vlad. Our title for it was:

Four Chicago Thugs Arrested for Kidnapping Torturing White Special Needs Kid

It is incomplete. But not deceptive. Incomplete because all the perps were black and it was clearly a race hate crime against white people as much as any crime can be a “hate crime.” The title could have said, “In hate crime” at the end and been more complete. But it was not deceptive as all the facts including the video are included in the post.

Now lets look at AP News tweet on the same story:

And now their coverage:

safariscreensnapz002

Once again, the MSM shows it is operating on a narrative at the expense of truth, likely to create an outcome, as opposed to informing the public as to real world events.

Is this a product of Obama’s office of the CVE?

Very possibly. Or is it a function of Bill Whittle’s observation that the Frankfurt School narrative is just how people think now and not a deep conspiracy?

Not in this case. This, and thousands of other examples of MSM deception are too well crafted to be a product of how a person thinks. This was a most deliberate attempt to sanitize salient facts out of the reporting of the event to create a predetermined impression in the reader.

As people get more and more aware of this kind of highly Marxist approach to information management, agencies that actually give demonstrably true information and analysis which has predictive value, like Gates of Vienna for example, are being labeled as “fake news” and software and legal measures are being created to make sure the public no longer has easy access to it.

This of course is the guaranteed path of Marxism or any system that seeks to supplant what is true, with what is conforming to an ideology. At some point, you have to use increasing levels of force to keep people talking and thinking in a conformist, non-diverse manner in accordance with the official doctrine. It starts with labeling non-compliant analysis and reporting as fake, and then applies software filters like Facebook and Twitter and Youtube do to varying degrees and with varying means. (Youtube no longer allows non-leftist independent journalists or analysis to monetize their videos) and inevitably will criminalize non compliance beginning with selectively enforced “hate-crimes” laws and reeducation camps and sooner or later boils down to just killing us.

Because it always does.

Just ask ‘Uncle Joe’.

[UPDATE: HEAVY.COM has this additional information about the event, the people, and the charges. The event was worse than reported by pretty much anyone]

For an understanding of the CVE, please see the following videos:

ISIS Threat in Washington, DC

Posted on by

dcis

Unconstrained Analytics, December 29, 2016:

UA’s Stephen Coughlin and Patrick Poole joined Congressman Louie Gohmert, filling in for Sean Hannity on the Hannity radio show, to discuss the growing evidence that there is an ISIS threat living right outside of our nation’s capitol as well as what needs to be done to effectively combat this threat.

Related:

Islamic State arrests reveal jihadi threat near seat of U.S. government (Washington Times)

Law enforcement agencies have arrested nine Northern Virginia residents on charges of aiding the Islamic State since the terrorist group rose to power in Syria and Iraq in 2014 and launched social media propaganda to attract followers, a government message to police states. . .

. . . Of the nine Northern Virginians who were arrested, all but one were in their teens and early 20s. They included a police officer, a Starbucks barista, Army soldiers, bankers and a cabdriver. Four of the nine graduated from Northern Virginia high schools, one with honors. Two attended Northern Virginia Community College.

In other words, all of them appeared to have opportunities via public education to become successful Americans but instead were charged with what amounted to a devotion to violent jihad.

They are suspected of conducting terrorism planning through Twitter, Facebook, Skype, WhatsApp and other platforms and apps, as well as on prepaid phones. . . . (read all)

Free Speech Champions Fight Back Against OSCE ‘Islamophobia’ Industry

Posted on by
Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf

Center for Security Policy, by Clare Lopez, October 13, 2016:

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry’s all-out assault on free speech was on full display at the recent annual meeting of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Human Dimension Implementation Meeting (HDIM) in Warsaw, Poland. The Center’s VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez and Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin attended the 26-27 September 2016 session, along with Debra Anderson, ACT! For America Chapter leader in Minnesota, Dave Petteys, ACT! Chapter leader from Colorado and key European colleagues Elizabeth Sabaditsch-Wolf from Austria, Henrik Clausen from Denmark, and Alain Wagner from France.

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

Center VP for Research and Analysis Clare Lopez

The Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) is a 57-member regional security organization with representatives from North America, Europe and Asia. It describes itself as a ‘forum for political dialogue on a wide range of security issues’ whose approach encompasses ‘politico-military, economic and environmental, and human dimensions’. The Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) is an office within the OSCE that claims to be dedicated to democratic elections, respect for human rights, rule of law, tolerance, and non-discrimination.

Their stated overall objective is helping governments protect and promote human rights, fundamental freedoms and tolerance and non-discrimination, as well as to improve and strengthen democratic practices and institutions. Except that the actual theme of the two-day proceedings had a lot more to do with countering ‘hate crime,’ criminalizing ‘hate speech,’ and demonizing ‘Islamophobia’ and ‘Islamophobes’ than it did with genuinely championing the right to believe, live, and speak freely.

Of course, the campaign to shut down free speech when it’s about Islam is very much in line with the top agenda item of the OIC (Organization of Islamic Cooperation), which is to achieve the criminalization of criticism of Islam in national legal codes. Gagging criticism of Islam is also what the UN Human Rights Council Resolution 16/18 tries to do. Then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton worked hard to make that happen in the U.S. and around the world when she promoted the Istanbul Process. The idea is to use existing laws against ‘incitement to violence,’ but in a novel way that applies a so-called ‘test of consequences.’ That is, if someone, somewhere, sometime decides what somebody said somewhere, sometime is offensive and then launches a ‘Day of Rage,’ or goes on a lawless rampage destroying property, injuring or killing people, guess whose fault that would be? Under the ‘test of consequences’ speech code, that would be the speaker.

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Center Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin

Notably, though, the Islamophobia crowd seemed to be very much on the defensive at this OSCE meeting. Their crouch-and-whine posture most likely had to do with the accelerating numbers of horrific Islamic terror attacks, whose trail of carnage and destruction is splashed across screens around the world for all to see. Along with those visuals comes increasing awareness on the part of more and more ordinary people that when they yell ‘Allahu Akbar,’ it doesn’t mean ‘Hail to the Redskins’: it means they are committing that attack in the name of Allah and Islam.

The ‘Islamophobia’ industry has neither the ability nor actual wish to stop jihad but it sure does wish so many were not putting ‘Allahu Akbar’ and Islamic terror together and then speaking out about it. The only recourse left to them is trying desperately to shut down free speech—including places like the U.S. where free speech is Constitutionally-protected. As CSP Senior Fellow Stephen Coughlin puts it:

This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

In other words, what they’re trying to do is enforce shariah’s law on slander – on us, on everyone, whether Muslim or not.

That effort at the Warsaw OSCE meeting went at it by various means: there was a great deal of emphasis on equating Islamophobia with ‘racism’ (but a new kind – not based on skin color), ‘bigotry,’ and violation of ‘human rights.’ Pouty complaints were heard about ‘feeling discriminated against,’ ‘marginalized,’ and the object of ‘hard looks’ because of wearing a hijab. When legal eagle Steve Coughlin and Danish defender Henrik Clausen demanded a specific legal definition of the term ‘Islamophobia,’ they were assailed for…you guessed it, ‘Islamophobia’! Needless to say, there was no legal definition forthcoming (because ‘everybody knows what it means’).

‘Islamophobia’ hysteria reached peak during the OSCE’s second day plenary session, where the Turkish General Secretary of the European Muslim Initiative for Social Cohesion (EMISCO), Bashy Qurayshi, came unglued with a plaintive wail that ‘Islamophobes’ who’d been permitted to infiltrate the OSCE were “lying, ranting and attempting to spread hatred at this conference.” He even threw in a reference to such ‘Islamophobes’ as ‘Nazis,’ at which point senior representatives at the OSCE head table actually broke into applause.

By way of counterpoint, however, it must be added that many delegates from Civil Society organizations throughout the OSCE membership area—including atheists, Baha’is, Christians, Jews, Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons—firmly pressed the case for free speech. We know that they took encouragement from our presence and outspokenness, even as we did from theirs.

The ‘Islamophobia’ crown went home from Warsaw in the sure knowledge that their attempts to silence free speech about Islam have stirred a gathering force of liberty’s champions who will not be silenced.

For more coverage of this year’s OSCE Human Dimension Implementation Meeting, including photos and video, please see Gates of Vienna at https://gatesofvienna.net/

Clare M. Lopez is the Vice President for Research and Analysis at the Center for Security Policy

***

You can also see all the videos here

EMISCO and the Ongoing Push Against “Islamophobia” by the OSCE

Posted on by

emisco-isis

Gates of Vienna, by Baron Bodissey Sept. 26, 2016:

The following report was written by the Counterjihad Collective after several members attended an EMISCO side event today at the OSCE/HDIM conference in Warsaw.

bulentsenayThe forum was structured so that the closing statements, given by Bülent Şenay, were delivered after the question-and-answer period to ensure a final word. The panel seemed defensive, with panel members making strident statements about various political parties, labeling them as “racist” and “Islamophobic”. Building on narratives emphasized in 2014, their efforts were aimed at escalating the Islamophobia rhetoric in the guise of racism and gender, with all of the women appearing in head coverings, amid a constant reference to the wearing of headscarves. Also of note was a peculiar omission: the materials associated with side event did not provide the names of the briefers.

Because EMISCO and the Turkish complement were force to acknowledge that the term “Islamophobia” lacks a definition, this question was presented again in this forum. The other question concerned the definition of “new form of racism not based on skin color” and “manifestations of racism” as well. The panel did not answer the question on racism. Quraishy answered that Islamophobia was not about reasonable disagreements. In his closing remarks, however, Bülent Şenay became visibly agitated, went off his prepared notes (he said) and forcefully declared that our asking the question was both Islamophobic and ridiculous because “we all know what it means” and hence “I won’t define it.” He went on to insist, however, that “we must define Islamophobia as a crime.” Of course, defining Islamophobia is an issue because criminalizing an activity that lacks a definition is a serious civil rights and verges on the criminalization of thought.

Professor Bülent Şenay speaks under color of some authority, which makes his observations something more than just the comments of a professor. The professor sits on the OSCE Human Rights Advisory Council, is a founding member of the Governing Board of EMISCO, and was the Diplomatic Counsel¬or for Religious and Cultural Affairs at the Turkish Embassy in The Hague from 2008 to 2012. In September 2013, Professor Şenay oversaw the drafting of a declaration that defined Islamophobia as “a groundless fear and intolerance of Islam and Muslims” that is “detrimental to international peace” such that there “should be recogni¬tion of Islamophobia as a hate crime and Islamophobic attitudes as human rights violations.” The declaration was written for the “International Conference on Islamophobia: Law & Media” in Istanbul, which was co-sponsored by Turkey’s Directorate General of Press and Information and the OIC. At the conference, Turkish President Erdoğan stated that “Islamophobia” is a “kind of racism” that is “a crime against humanity.” In 2014, Şenay felt comfortable chiding the Western audience by saying, “if I were to present a particular favor, this would be the title, ‘A New Cultural ISIS — International Strong Ignorance Syndrome’” as he presented his briefing with the title, “Is¬lamophobia in the 21st Century: International Strong IgnoranceSyndrome in Europe (ISIS).” In doing so, Şenay was suggesting that the extremism was in the reactions of the West, not in the acts of ISIS.

***

Stephen Coughlin at OSCE today by Vlad Tepes

Some may remember Stephen Coughlin’s intervention at a 2015 OSCE meeting where they openly admitted that hate speech should be a criminal matter and that the truth can indeed be hate speech.

Stephen went back to the OSCE “Human Development Implementation Meeting” today and spoke again to this committee, who seem bound and determined to use the language of cultural-Marxism to turn free societies into totalitarian Marxist and communist ones.

***

Clare Lopez on Islamic antisemitism at the OSCE – Turkish response follows by Vlad Tepes

This is Clare Lopez’s presentation at the OSCE, the European body that seeks to criminalize criticism of Islam as hate speech, today in Warsaw.

According to those watching the conference via live stream, this odd set of remarks by the Turkish delegate was a response to Clare’s presentation, as well as the rest of the interventions by Center for Security Policy personnel.

***

Elisabeth Sabaditsch Wolff OSCE Human Dimension Implementation meeting Warsaw 2106

***

Tundra Tabloids:

At the Organization of Security and Cooperation in Europe in Warsaw Poland, Atheists Ireland spokesman denounces the term “Islamofauxbia” as a fraudulent term.

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Dave Petties OSCE presentation September 27 2016

***

Vlad Tepesblog:

Stephen Coughlin OSCE Sept 27

We’re at War: The Calm Before the Storm

Posted on by

steve-coughlin

Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, Sept. 6, 2016:

Stephen Coughlin spoke in Washington, DC at ACTCON 2016, Act for America’s “National Conference and Legislative Briefing: Taking Back America’s Security” about potential terrorist threats to the U.S. homeland. He talked about his former work and his critiques of American intelligence and homeland security agencies. Coughlin also expressed his concern about operational inadequacies at some of those agencies.

Watch the video on the CSPAN website

Transcript of Stephen Coughlin Speech (pdf)

–

Quotes and Excerpts from the Speech:

WE ARE AT WAR. WE ARE AT WAR WITH AN ENEMY WHO OPENLY DECLARES HIMSELF, THEY IDENTIFY THEIR STRATEGIES, THEY WRITE THEM IN ENGLISH BECAUSE THEY HAVE CONVINCED YOU THAT IF YOU READ THEM, THEY DON’T MEAN ANYTHING, BECAUSE THERE ARE A THOUSAND DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OF ISLAM.

–

THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND. THEY DON’T PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON THE BATTLEFIELDS OF IRAQ AND SYRIA. THEY PLAN TO WIN THE WAR ON THE INFORMATION BATTLE SPACE HERE. THEY EXECUTE AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL, TARGETING CONTROL, TARGETING CONTROL AT DECISIONMAKING TO CONTROL NARRATIVES USED TO ANALYZE AND DISCUSS EVENTS.

–

FOR EVERY POLITICIAN AND REPORTER AND PEOPLE WHO WANT TO SOUND SMART WHO STARTS OFF THEIR NARRATIVE BY SAYING THAT WHAT ISIS DOES HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM, I HAVE A SOURCE THAT BEATS EVERY ONE OF THEIR SOURCES AND BEATS IT 50 TIMES OVER. WE ARE BEING CONTROLLED BY NARRATIVES.

–

THE ENEMY’S MAIN EFFORT IS A SUSTAINED STRATEGIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL. WHAT IS THE OBJECTIVE? TO WIN THE WAR BY DENYING YOU THE ABILITY TO IDENTIFY HIM, THEREBY ALLOWING HIM TO CONTROL YOU.

–

POLITICAL CORRECTNESS IS AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM TO A CULTURAL MARXIST NARRATIVE THAT SEEKS TO DESTROY YOUR IDENTITY.

–

WHEN YOU HEAR A GENERAL WITH COMBAT RESPONSIBILITIES SAY, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GETS IN THE WAY OF MY DOING MY JOB, WHAT HE JUST TOLD YOU WAS IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT FOR HIM TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT THAN TO KEEP YOUR SONS AND DAUGHTERS ALIVE AND TO WIN THE WAR.

–

THE GAME IS THIS WAR IS INTENDED TO BE FOUGHT AT THE POLITICAL WARFARE LEVEL THROUGH CONTROL OF SPEECH. THE ENEMY IT IS NOT JUST THE ISLAMIC ENEMY AT THE POINT AT WHICH THEY TOUCH YOU. IT IS THESE NARRATIVES THAT WERE NOT NECESSARILY CONSTRUCTED BY THEM, BUT ARE BEING ENFORCED THROUGH WHAT ARE CALLED THE HATE SPEECH NARRATIVES.

–

IN 2005, HE WAS INTERVIEWED IN THIS ARTICLE TO TALK ABOUT WHAT AL QAEDA’S PLAN WAS AS PUBLISHED IN 2005. AND ALL I WANT TO DO IS POINT OUT THAT THEY SAID, IN THE YEAR 2002 THAT BETWEEN 2010 AND 2013 THEY WOULD COLLAPSE THE ARAB STATES, AND THEY WOULD COLLAPSE THE ARAB STATES.

THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO KNOW ME FROM BACK IN 2010 THAT I WAS BRIEFING ON CAPITOL HILL AT THE END OF 2010, WATCH OUT, THE BROTHERHOOD IS GOING TO BE LEADING THE CHARGE TO TAKE DOWN THESE ARAB STATES, IT IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE A FREEDOM MOVEMENT, AND NOBODY IS GOING TO UNDERSTAND THAT FROM BEGINNING TO END IT IS GOING TO BE A TAKEDOWN.

AND THEN FIVE MONTHS LATER, IN FEBRUARY, WE SAW THE ARAB SPRING. OF COURSE THEY KNEW THE ENGLISH SPEAKING JOURNALISTS WOULD GO TO TAHRIR SQUARE AND INTERVIEW ENGLISH SPEAKING PEOPLE TO TALK ABOUT FREEDOM. THEY KNOW IT IS AS EASY AS GIVING A KID CANDY, GIVING THE WEST WHAT IT WANTS TO HEAR, SO THEY CREATED A PARTY CALLED FREEDOM AND JUSTICE. THEY KNOW WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT. THEY ALSO KNOW WHAT IT MEANS IS FREEDOM FROM THE LAWS OF MAN, JUSTICE ACCORDING TO SHARIA.

–

THE FIFTH PHASE WAS TO BEGIN IN 2013 WITH THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE CALIPHATE, AND THE FOUNDATION OF THE ISLAMIC STATE. AND, OF COURSE, PHASE SIX WOULD BEGIN IN 2016, AND THAT WOULD BE TOTAL CONFRONTATION.

I THINK THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT BECAUSE WE HAVE A 2005 ARTICLE WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY INTERVIEWING AL QAEDA ON A DOCUMENT THEY WROTE IN 2002 TELLING YOU WHAT THEIR TIMELINE IS, AND THEY ARE EXACTLY WHERE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE. EXACTLY WHERE THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE.

–

WITH SAN BERNARDINO, THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD TOOK CONTROL OF THE NARRATIVE FROM BEGINNING TO END. . . .

OUR NATIONAL LEADERS DECIDED THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD INCLUDING TO ALLOW THEM TO SET THE DEBATE TO ALLOW THE ATTORNEY GENERAL TO STAND ON A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD DIAS TO THREATEN AMERICANS AND TO HAVE THE “LET’S TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH OF A TRAGEDY THIS IS”–AT A MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD MOSQUE.

–

THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD REPRESENTS LEADERSHIP ELEMENT OF THE MUSLIM COMMUNITY IN AMERICA BECAUSE THEY GET THE MEDIA AND THEY TALK TO OUR GOVERNMENT, IT IS NOT AT ALL CLEAR THAT MOST MUSLIMS AGREE OR EVEN PARTICIPATE IN THAT.

SO THE QUESTION BECOMES, IF YOU ARE MUSLIM, AND YOU WANT TO BE AN AMERICAN CITIZEN AND OBEY THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, DO YOU THINK YOU’RE GOING TO GO TO THE FBI OR DHS TO REPORT A POSSIBLE TERRORIST EVENT WHEN YOU KNOW THEIR OUTREACH PARTNERS OF THE BROTHERHOOD? ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT?

WHO GUARANTEES, REALLY, THAT YOU’RE NOT GOING TO GET REPORTS FROM THAT COMMUNITY BESIDES THE BROTHERHOOD WHO ARE THREATENING PEOPLE RIGHT HERE?

–

WE’RE SEEING THE BROTHERHOOD ACTUALLY ADVERTISE WHAT THEY’RE DOING, WE’RE SEEING OUR GOVERNMENT COMPLETELY AFFILIATE WITH THEM AT THE TIME OF TRAGIC EVENTS, AND IT GOES RIGHT BY PEOPLE.

–

I WOULD ARGUE THAT OUR WHOLE ORIENTATION TO THE WAR ON TERROR HAS BEEN REDUCED TO INCOHERENCE. AND THAT WE HAVE LOST THE BATTLE AND THE INFORMATION BATTLE SPACE. WE HAVE LOST IT.

–

THE VERY WAY WE TALK ABOUT THIS WAR ENSURES THAT WE CANNOT EFFECTIVELY ENGAGE IT. LEADERLESS JIHAD, HUMAN TERRAIN, VIOLENT EXTREMISTS, LONE WOLF. EVERY ONE OF THEM ARE NONSENSE. THEY SOUND ANALYTICAL. THEY’RE NOT. THEY ARE DESIGNED TO GET YOU TO TALK ABOUT WHAT A POLITICAL SCIENTIST, A SOCIOLOGIST OR ANTHROPOLOGIST THINKS IS INTELLECTUALLY INTRIGUING WHEN THEY BUILT A MODEL TO UNDERSTAND EVENTS THAT COULD BE EXPLAINED WITHOUT THE MODEL.

–

IS NATIONAL SECURITY STAFF GOING TO ADMIT THEY GOT IN BED WITH PEOPLE WHO DECLARED THEIR OBJECTIVE WAS TO SUBVERT AMERICA FROM WITHIN BY AMONG OTHER THINGS WORKING WITH THEM? NO.

–

HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD WHEN WE HEAR OUR POLITICIANS TALK ABOUT ISIS, THE FIRST THING THEY SAY IS THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM. HOW MANY PEOPLE HEARD THAT? OKAY. WHY IS IT THAT THEY GET TO TELL YOU WHAT ISLAM IS BUT IF YOU COME UP WITH A FACT-BASED, CITED, USE OF ISLAMIC SOURCES RESPONSE, YOU’RE THE PERSON WHO IS A HATER WHO HAS TO JUSTIFY WHAT HE SAID?

–

WE GET THE KINETIC PART OF IT, WE’RE ALSO AT WAR WITH THE NONKINETIC STRATEGIES THAT ARE EXECUTING IN PLAIN SIGHT.

–

SPLINTER MOVEMENT: YOU CREATE A NON-VIOLENT GROUP (LIKE OIC OR THE MUSLIM BROTHERHOOD), AND THEN A SPLINTER GROUP THAT IS VIOLENT. THEN AS SOON AS THE VIOLENT GROUP HITS, THE NONVIOLENCE SPLINTER SAYS IF YOU WORK WITH US, WE CAN KEEP THEM FROM KILLING YOU. WELL, WHAT DO WE HAVE TO DO? WELL, YOU HAVE TO DO WHAT THEY SAY. OH, OKAY. AND YOU SEE WE’RE GOING TO HELP YOU. WE’RE MODERATE. WE WANT TO HELP YOU. OKAY. THIS IS CLASSICAL SPLINTER MOVEMENT OPERATION. OF COURSE, THE JIHADI ELEMENTS ARE GROUPS LIKE AL QAEDA, OR ISIS, AND THE UMA PAR EXCELLENCE IS THE OIC.

–

WE DO NOT EVEN UNDERSTAND IN AMERICA THAT OUR NATIONAL SECURITY ESTABLISHMENT DOESN’T EVEN SPEAK IN TERMS OF STRATEGIC DESIGN. SO THEY DO NOT UNDERSTAND STRATEGIC INFORMATION OPERATIONS, AND THEY WOULDN’T RECOGNIZE POLITICAL WARFARE INFORMATION CAMPAIGNS COMING AT THEM IF THEIR LIFE DEPENDED ON IT.

–

POLITICAL WARFARE IS ABOUT CREATING THE COUNTERSTATE WHERE THE OTHER SIDE HAS PEOPLE, TECHNICAL SKILLS, WEAPONS, PROPAGANDA, MEDIA, AND CREATE LINES OF OPERATION THAT ATTACK THE POLITICAL, VIOLENT, NONVIOLENT, ALLIES AND INTERNATIONAL SPEAR HERE. WHAT YOU HAVE TO DO IS RECOGNIZE THAT AT THE STRATEGIC LEVEL AND COUNTER IT. BUT YOU HAVE TO RECOGNIZE THAT.

–

ONE OF THE SENIOR GENERALS AT OUR SPECIAL OPERATIONS COMMAND RECENTLY MADE THIS STATEMENT. “WE DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE MOVEMENT, AND UNTIL WE DO, WE ARE NOT GOING TO DEFEAT IT. WE HAVE NOT DEFEATED THE IDEA. WE DON’T EVEN UNDERSTAND THE IDEA.” THAT’S A GENERAL OFFICER ALLOCATING FORCE TO FIGHT A WAR.

DO YOU THINK THAT ISIS KNOWS THAT OUR GENERALS DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING? DO YOU THINK THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THE OUTREACH PARTNERS FOR OUR LAW ENFORCEMENT KNOW THAT THEY DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING?

LET ME ASK YOU THIS QUESTION. DO YOU THINK THE RUSSIANS KNOW THAT? DO YOU THINK THE CHINESE KNOW THAT?

–

THE COST OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE ENEMY IS GETTING HIGH. AND HIGHER EVERY DAY. IT WILL BE INCREASINGLY MEASURED BY NEWS STORIES THAT NARROW IN ON SENIOR LEADERS INABILITY TO ANSWER BASIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE ENEMY. IT WILL MANIFEST ITSELF IN OFFICIAL RESPONSES TO TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT BECOME PROGRESSIVELY LESS REALITY BASED.

–

HOW MANY PEOPLE FEEL THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAME HERE JUST FEELING A TAD BIT DEMORALIZED?  THE ENEMY’S GOAL IS TO MAKE YOU FEEL HOPELESS AT A TIME WHEN IF YOU REALIZED YOU WEREN’T, YOU COULD TAKE THE UPPER HAND.

Stephen Coughlin: Yes, the Truth May Constitute Hate Speech

Posted on by

truth-is-the-new-hate-speechGates of Vienna, by  Baron Bodissey, August 27, 2016:

On August 21, the American Freedom Alliance sponsored a conference in Los Angeles, “Islam and Western Civilization: Can they Coexist?” One of the speakers was Major (ret.) Stephen Coughlin, the author of Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad.

Note: In his talk, Maj. Coughlin refers to OSCE events that he attended. The response by CSP and ICLA to the use of the term “Islamophobia” at OSCE is here. The video of his encounter with the globalist enforcers of the OSCE narrative is here.

Many thanks to Henrik Clausen for recording, and to Vlad Tepes for uploading this video:

***

Here is a longer presentation given recently at an Act! For America event in San Antonio, TX :

Our Catastrophic Failure of Jihad Denial

Posted on by

cf

Front Page Magazine, by Daniel Greenfield, Aug. 23, 2016:

An outraged nation watched on September 11 as a handful of Muslim terrorists managed to kill thousands of Americans in one of the worst attacks in our history. Answers were demanded and commissions were established to investigate why we failed to prevent the attack.

Why didn’t we know that it was coming? Why didn’t we do something?

It’s still a good question as the number of attacks mount. But under Obama, we actually know less about Islamic terrorism than we used to.

While thousands of Americans died on that terrible day at the hands of Islamic terrorists, thousands of other Americans stepped forward to do their duty. Some brought sandwiches to Ground Zero. Others enlisted in the military to fight. Still others sought unique ways to use their special talents to make a contribution to combating the enemies of civilization.

Stephen Coughlin was a reserve Army officer called up to active duty. He left the private sector for the Directorate for Intelligence. For the next six years he worked in a variety of key roles to shape and orient the war and spoke about the threat of Islamic terrorism everywhere from Quantico to the Naval War College so that those on the front lines of the conflict would understand who the enemy was.

Then he was forced out because he was too good at pointing out the enemy. And the enemy had gotten inside. It would bore deeper and deeper into our national security infrastructure as the years and the wars dragged on.

But the government’s loss is our gain.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is Coughlin’s vigorous blast of fresh air through the stale clichés that clutter up counterterrorism conversations. You know the ones. Offending Islam plays into the hands of the terrorists. Mentioning that Al Qaeda is Islamic plays into the hands of the terrorists. Doing anything except playing the denial game also plays into the hands of the terrorists.

“Catastrophic Failure” conveys the information that Coughlin packaged in briefings to the men and women fighting the war. It is the outcome of his work, his briefings and his research. It is why he was fired.

As one of the leading experts in what the terrorists of Islam actually think and want, Stephen Coughlin not only shatters this brass wall of dishonesty, but shows that the real threat comes from the concealment of whom the terrorists we are fighting are and what they really want.

Coughlin’s conviction in analysis took him on this Diogenesian journey for the truth. He was not the only one traveling this road, discarding the excuses and the lies, striving to see clearly what was happening and why. And yet his position so close to the heart of the great failure machine of national security gives him a unique insight into what has gone wrong and into what must be set right.

That is what “Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is. It is an analysis of what has gone wrong. Its cover of an eagle wearing a green blindfold all too aptly captures the tragic farce of our fight against terrorism. But it is also a compelling argument about what we must do.

Instead of seeing the threats the bird of prey tasked with our national defense has been hooded in green. He sits tamely on the arm of the Muslim Brotherhood falconer. Our government has responded to Muslim terror by seeking out Muslim moderates to save us from the extremists. But the moderates are not moderate. And working so close to the machine, Coughlin saw how the need to win over moderates, to consult them and rely on them, led to the shift in power as they created the framework in which decisions were made.

Counterterrorism was increasingly being made in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and by the Muslim Brotherhood.

The great struggle of our time is to flip that framework over and restore the power of decision for this war to Americans. Coughlin is a powerful writer and thinker, and he has poured his passion into these arguments that are meant to accomplish just that. He knows Islamic thought and law, and their real life implications, but his background has also prepared him to present focused laser blasts of information to audiences. His key goal and theme has been the importance of knowing the enemy.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a text of knowledge. It is a book about the importance of knowing the enemy so that we may know the war that we are in.

Coughlin draws us a map of the Islamic organizational war against civilization “unconstrained” by the usual preconceptions about moderates and extremists. Instead he shows us who the enemy is by showing us how they think and how they see themselves. He connects the red dots of the Islamic Movement and the road to the Caliphate which is being pursued by far more Muslim groups than just the overt butchers of ISIS whose lack of patience leads them to act before they can sustain their Jihad.

“Catastrophic Failure” is not merely a book about Islamic terrorism. It is about the core worldview of the struggle. It is about how the bombings, shootings and stabbings that we see on the evening news are rooted in an Islamic mindset that stretches from the proverbial “lone wolf” whose actions are blamed on psychiatric problems or a failure to integrate to the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation and the rest of our so-called moderate allies and partners.

It is also about how our process, our ability to analyze and produce forecasts, and then to make decisions based on them, was corrupted by Islamic influence operations. It is about how the “eagle” was seduced with fantasies of moderate Islam by the enemies of this country. And it is about what must be done to lift the eagle’s blindfold and allow him to soar overhead again.

Stephen Coughlin has seen the profound failure of our national security up close. He saw what went wrong and equally importantly, he has seen what could have been if national security were oriented around our security instead of orbiting like a satellite around our impulses toward political correctness.

“Catastrophic Failure: Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad” is a valuable book because it reflects the invaluable experiences of its author. It is a story of three wars. The war that was. The war that is. And the war that will be. The motives and the tactics of the enemy have remained consistent in these wars. And that allows Coughlin to predict their patterns. The enemy will not suddenly turn moderate. The question that hangs over the war that will be is whether our leaders will open their eyes to the fight.

Hillary Clinton is a great defender of religious freedom … for Islamic Supremacists

Posted on by
STR | AP Photo

STR | AP Photo

Apparently for Hillary Clinton, religious liberty means freedom for Islamic supremacists to spread their rule while subjugating the infidel.

Conservative Review, by Benjamin Weingarten, Aug. 13, 2016:

Did you know that Hillary Clinton is a staunch advocate for religious liberty?

She says so herself in an op-ed in Utah’s Deseret News:

I’ve been fighting to defend religious freedom for years. As secretary of state, I made it a cornerstone of our foreign policy to protect the rights of religious minorities around the world — from Coptic Christians in Egypt to Buddhists in Tibet

We stood up for these oppressed communities because Americans know that democracy ceases to exist when a leader or ruling faction can impose a particular faith on everyone else.

Clinton’s claim of support for Coptic Christians in Egypt here is particularly rich — did she protect the Copts from Islamic-based persecution before or after supporting the ouster of Hosni Mubarak and replacement by jihadi-supporting Muslim Brotherhood leader Mohamed Morsi?

Indeed, the results of the Obama administration foreign policy overseen by then-Secretary of State Clinton can only be characterized as a complete and utter failure when it comes to defending religious freedom with respect to the Islamic world.

From Iran to Iraq to Egypt to Libya to Syria — in every instance under the Obama administration — we have seen Islamic supremacists, regardless of whether they were Sunni or Shia, emboldened and empowered, leaving minorities from Kurds to Yazidis to Copts disenfranchised and facing violence. The Jewish State of Israel — the minority state in the Middle East — is left facing threats now from not just from Hamas and Iran-backed Hezbollah, but ISIS and a greatly strengthened Iran itself.

Secretary Clinton says democracy will not exist when one faction can impose its faith on all, but the Islamic supremacist groups that took power under her watch and/or were armed by the U.S. government — often displacing relatively secular authoritarians — subscribe to a Sharia law that requires religious minorities to convert to Islam, live as third-class citizens, or face the sword.

Clinton’s record on religious liberty, when it comes to the Middle East, can be best represented by 21 Egyptian Christians in orange jump suits kneeling on the shores of Libya with knives to their throat wielded by their ISIS captors.

Meanwhile, freedom of speech is a prerequisite to freedom of religion. Here, Mrs. Clinton’s record is even more woeful, as she has gone out of her way to seek to criminalize speech deemed critical of Islam.

Set aside for a second Clinton’s outrageous promise to bring justice to the families of those slain in Benghazi by arresting a filmmaker who made a video about Muhammad that the Obama administration knew from Day One had nothing to do with the jihadist savagery of September 11, 2012.

Secretary Clinton championed U.N. Human Rights Commission Resolution 16/18, which was backed by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC). As I have noted elsewhere, Resolution 16/18

calls for “combating intolerance, negative stereotyping and stigmatization of, and discrimination, incitement to violence, and violence against persons based on religion or belief.”

Retired Maj. Stephen Coughlin, the Pentagon’s [former] leading adviser on Islamic law as it relates to national security, makes a compelling case in his book “Catastrophic Failure” that the resolution is actually a Shariah-based Trojan Horse meant to stifle all criticism of Islam.

Coughlin writes that the Islamic Conference, through the resolution, seeks to criminalize incitement to violence by imposing a “legal standard designed to facilitate the “shut up before I hit you again” standard associated with the battered wife syndrome.”

He convincingly argues that the Islamic Conference desires that

…[T]he United Nations, the European Union, the United States and all other non-Muslim countries pass laws criminalizing Islamophobia. This is a direct extraterritorial demand that non-Muslim jurisdictions submit to Islamic law and implement shariah-based punishment over time. In other words, the OIC is set on making it an enforceable crime for non-Muslim people anywhere in the world—including the United States—to say anything about Islam that Islam does not permit.

For the cherry on top, while supporting Islamic supremacist movements in the Middle East, and seeking to muzzle Americans when it comes to criticism of Islamic supremacist ideology, Secretary Clinton argues that resettling Syrian refugees in America further represents her devotion to religious liberty.

She writes:

Instead of giving into demagoguery, [Utah] Gov. Gary Herbert is setting a compassionate example and welcoming Syrian refugees fleeing religious persecution and terrorism. Once they’ve gone through a rigorous screening process, he is opening your state’s doors to some of the most vulnerable people in the world.

This policy might be good and well save for the fact that ISIS has told us they intend to infiltrate such refugee populations, and use our compassion and belief in religious liberty against us to carry out such a Trojan Horse operation; and of course, Clinton-enabling FBI Director James Comey himself has said we cannot sufficiently vet such refugees.

Again, the Islamic supremacists whether violent or peaceful that are likely to embed themselves among such refugee populations do not share Mrs. Clinton’s supposed belief in religious liberty, but rather seek to force all non-Muslims submit to their theo-political Islamic supremacist ideology. This is the antithesis of the democracy that Hillary Clinton purports to champion.

Apparently for Hillary Clinton, religious liberty means freedom for Islamic supremacists to spread their rule while subjugating the infidel.

And don’t even get her started on abortion.

Ben Weingarten is Founder & CEO of ChangeUp Media LLC, a media consulting and publication services firm. A graduate of Columbia University, he regularly contributes to publications such as City Journal, The Federalist, Newsmax and PJ Media on national security/defense, economics and politics. You can follow him on Facebook and Twitter. 

Also see:

Revisiting the Muslim Brotherhood’s August 2013 ‘Reign of Terror’ Targeting Egypt’s Christians

Posted on by
St Mousa the Black Coptic Church, Minya, Upper Egypt (Photo credit: Patrick Poole)

St Mousa the Black Coptic Church, Minya, Upper Egypt (Photo credit: Patrick Poole)

PJ MEDIA, BY PATRICK POOLE, AUGUST 14, 2016:

Three years ago today a systematic campaign targeting Egypt’s Christian community by Muslim Brotherhood supporters began, causing the destruction of dozens of churches, monasteries, Christian businesses and homes across Egypt – attacks unprecedented for several centuries.

Even today many of these churches and monasteries that were looted and torched during August 2013 remain in disrepair as attacks on Christians continue in certain areas of Egypt.

Several months after the Muslim Brotherhood carved this path of destruction through the Egyptian Christian community, I had the opportunity to visit some of these sites and meet with Coptic church leaders to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood’s role in these attacks.

The Coptic Christian community in Egypt is significant not only because it is one of the oldest and largest Christian communities in the Middle East, but the Coptic Christians make up more than half of the Christians still remaining in the Middle East.

Escorted by Father Anthony Hanna of St. Mary and St. Mina’s Coptic Church in Concord, California, in April 2014 we traveled deep into Upper Egypt, where many of the attacks by the Muslim Brotherhood occurred.

Muslim-Brotherhood-church-attacks-August-2013

One of the first indications of how tense the situation remained even months after the attacks were the levels of security we had to pass through to attend the Easter service at St. Mark’s Coptic Cathedral.

Our driver was not even allowed close to the cathedral entrance, so we were dropped off about a quarter mile away. As we passed through the gates, we were checked for our passports and the passes to attend the service. This would be the first of seven ID checks we had to go through to enter the cathedral on the holiest holiday for Christians around the world.

There was good reason for concern for security. A year earlier, the cathedral hadbeen attacked during a funeral by Muslim mobs without any intervention by police under the government of then-President Mohamed Morsi, a top Muslim Brotherhood leader.

Several days later we had lunch with Father Hanna, where he introduced us to a young Coptic man, “George,” who had been been kidnapped for eight days in January 2013. The son of a prominent Coptic businessman, he was held until his family paid a $100,000 ransom.

“George” described his captivity at the hands of his Islamist captors. Initially he was beaten, and subjected to anti-Christian taunts throughout his captivity. When his captors had obtained the ransom, but before he was released, “George” was blindfolded and a gun held to his head, where he was told that if he didn’t renounce his Christian faith and accept Islam, he would be killed. Unable to get him to renounce his faith and with their ransom secured, “George” was released.

Sadly, the kidnapping of Christians in Egypt is still a regular occurrence.

Later that evening, Father Hanna, My Unconstrained Analytics colleague Stephen Coughlin, and myself received a personal audience with Pope Tawadros II at his office and residence in the St. Mark’s Cathedral compound. Again, we had to pass through layers of security, including armored vehicles stationed at the cathedral gates.

Steve Coughlin, Fr. Anthony Hanna meeting with Pope Tawadros II (Photo credit: Patrick Poole)

Steve Coughlin, Fr. Anthony Hanna meeting with Pope Tawadros II (Photo credit: Patrick Poole)

Armored vehicle protecting St. Mark's Coptic Cathedral in Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt (Photo credit: Patrick Poole)

Armored vehicle protecting St. Mark’s Coptic Cathedral in Abbassia, Cairo, Egypt (Photo credit: Patrick Poole)

During our audience, Pope Tawadros detailed the ongoing fallout of the Muslim Brotherhood attacks in August 2013 and his reasons for backing Morsi’s ouster following the massive June 30 protests.

Two of the things he specifically cited were the April 2013 attacks on the cathedral, which he noted was without precedent in Coptic history and which a Morsi aide had blamed Christians for, and the torture of Christian protesters in March 2013 by Muslim Brotherhood cadres at a mosque following protests against the Muslim Brotherhood government of Mohamed Morsi.

Pope Tawadros had been praised for speaking out during the Muslim Brotherhood’s August 2013 ‘Reign of Terror’ for discouraging attempts to save the churches and the monasteries. “We could replace the buildings, we couldn’t replace the people,” he told us.

Several days later Father Hanna and I set out for Upper Egypt with arrangements made by Pope Tawadros’ staff. Here is a video of Father Hanna discussing our trip into Upper Egypt with CBN News.

Murder in Minya

Our first stop in Upper Egypt was in Minya, one of the largest cities in Upper Egypt about 140 miles south of Cairo. A majority of Egypt’s Christian community lives in Upper Egypt, and considerable destruction occurred in the Minya region.

We initially met with Bishop Makarios, who had survived an assassination attemptjust months before. Bishop Makarios noted was that Christian homes and businesses in Minya had been marked with an “X” by Muslim Brotherhood supporters in the days prior to the attacks, much as ISIS did with Christian homes in Mosul, Iraq two years later.

During their ‘Reign of Terror’ the Muslim Brotherhood had openly encouraged the attacks, such as this justification for retaliation posted on the Facebook page of the Muslim Brotherhood’s Freedom and Justice Party in Helwan…

******

…In July 2014, Father Hanna and I met with a number of congressional leaders in Washington D.C. describing what we found on our trip and the necessity to changing the U.S. government’s current openness to the Muslim Brotherhood that had waged the August 2013 terror campaign.

Steve Coughlin and I met again with Pope Tawadros last September when we escorted a congressional delegation to Egypt. He told us of the efforts by the Egyptian government to help rebuild the churches – a promise by President Sisi that is being fulfilled.

But issues clearly remain. As previously noted, attacks on the Christian community in Egypt are increasing as the government continues to deal with a widespread terror campaign, while the Parliament takes up several draft laws to end discrimination against Christians in building churches and removing religion from national identification cards.

And as I’ve reported here at PJ Media the Muslim Brotherhood has escalated their terror tactics in Egypt, most recently with a Muslim Brotherhood IED terror cell in Alexandria that had targeted military and police officials.

Three years on from the Muslim Brotherhood’s ‘Reign of Terror’ it seems time for Egypt to ensure that all Egyptians enjoy equal protection under the law free from discrimination. And it is overdue for the U.S. government to designate the Muslim Brotherhood as the terrorist group it is and always has been, as witnessed by the events of August 2013.

Read it all (many photos and video)

Also see:

JAMIE GLAZOV MOMENT: 9 STEPS TO COUNTER JIHAD (videos)

Posted on by
Sipa via AP Images

Sipa via AP Images

These videos are based on Jamie’s recent Breitbart article, 9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad.

From The Glazov Gang

Part I (Steps #1-3):

Part II (Steps #4-6): 

Part III (Steps 7-9):

9 Steps to Successfully Counter Jihad

Posted on by
Sipa via AP Images

Sipa via AP Images

Breitbart, by Jamie Glazov, July 13, 2016:

While the Obama administration continues to allow the Muslim Brotherhood to direct American foreign policy and, therefore, to implement “strategies” that render America defenseless in the face of Jihad and stealth Jihad, there are some alternative strategies that have the potential to turn this catastrophic situation around completely in America’s favor.

Below are 9 concrete steps that, if implemented by a future American administration, would make a big difference in preserving our civilization and in defending Americans from terrorism:

1. Label the Enemy and Make a Threat Assessment.

The Obama administration continues to refuse to label our enemy and, therefore, it continues to enable our defeat in the terror war. It is urgent that we name our enemy (i.e. Islamic Jihad) and definitively identify what ideology inspires our enemy (i.e. Islamic law).

2. Scrap “Countering Violent Extremism.”

“Countering Violent Extremism” is the pathetic and destructive focus of the Obama administration in allegedly fighting the terror war. On the one hand, this “focus” is vague to the point of being meaningless and completely incapacitates us. On the other hand, this focus allows the administration to perpetuate the destructive fantasy that there are other types of “extremists” — who just happen to be the Left’s political opponents — that pose a great threat to the country.

For example, as Stephen Coughlin has revealed, the “violent extremists” the administration is clearly worried about are the “right-wing Islamophobes” whom the administration obviously considers to be the real threat to American security.

The “Countering Violent Extremism” is trash and needs to be thrown in the garbage.

3. Stop “Partnering” With Muslim Brotherhood Front Groups.

The government needs to stop cooperating with, and listening to, Muslim Brotherhood front groups such as CAIR and ISNA immediately. The Muslim Brotherhood document, the Explanatory Memorandum, has made it clear that the Brotherhood’s objective is to destroy our civilization from within by our own hands with the influence of these groups. Moreover, as Robert Spencer advises, there needs to be legislation that will bar all such groups and affiliated individuals from advising the government or receiving any grants from it.

4. Implement a Concrete “Countering-Jihad” Strategy.

After discarding the “Countering Violent Extremism” absurdity, a concrete Counter-Jihad strategy must become an official policy. It must specifically register that Jihadists are the enemies and that Islamic law (Sharia) is what specifically motivates them.

Most importantly, as Sebastian Gorka urges in Defeating Jihad: The Winnable War, the government needs to lay down a vision, an actual “threat doctrine analysis” in a thorough document, just like George Kennan’s Long Telegram and NSC-68 did in laying out the strategic foundation to fighting communism in the Cold War. It is absolutely mind-boggling that nothing of this sort exists today in our terror war — and it is a reflection of the Left being in charge and of the destructive defeat that it is sowing.

4. Launch Our Own Counter-propaganda Campaign.

The Left and Islamists engage in propaganda 24/7. What does our propaganda war entail? Zilch.

Sebastian Gorka is crucially correct, therefore, when he recommends a national counter-propaganda campaign that involves a two-part approach: the first being the bolstering of efforts to define our enemy (Steps #1 and #4 above) and, second, the strengthening of our allies and partners in their own counter-propaganda efforts – which must include our empowering of Muslims who are trying to form an anti-Jihadist version of Islam.

Consequently, educational programs have to be set up everywhere, from public schools to universities to workplaces, in businesses and numerous other institutions. These programs must crystallize what exactly Islamic Law is and how it inspires and sanctions violence against unbelievers. This has to also involve, as Gorka urges, “a nationwide program of education that includes the armed services as well as federal, state, and local police forces and the intelligence community.”

The education campaign must also focus on the second part of Gorka’s counter-propaganda campaign, which is to help strengthen Muslims who seek to seize Islam from the jihadists’ hands.

6. Affirm Sharia’s Assault on the U.S. Constitution as Seditious.

Once the truth is accepted that jihadis are inspired and sanctioned by their Islamic texts, it must logically become required that mosques, Islamic schools and groups have to immediately curtail any teaching that motivates sedition, violence, and hatred of unbelievers (i.e. remember how CAIR advised Muslims not to talk to the FBI). Indeed, once the government discerns and labels the elements of Islamic law that threaten the American Constitution, any preaching and spreading of those elements in America must be labelled as seditious.

7. Put Pressure on Mosques, Islamic Groups and Schools.

Authorities have to start subjecting mosques and other Islamic institutions to surveillance — and discard the suicidal leftist notion that it is “racist” and Islamophobic to do so. Islamic institutions have to be made to buffer their lip-service against terror with actually doing something about it. As Robert Spencer counsels, this has to involve introducing programs that teach against jihadists’ understanding of Islam — and these programs have to be regularly monitored by the government. (This will be a part of Gorka’s suggested counter-propaganda campaign discussed in Step #5).

Spencer rightly stresses that the paradigm has to become that Muslim communities have to win the “trust” of intelligence and law enforcement agents, rather than the other way around, which is, absurdly and tragically, the case right now.

8. Bring Counter-Jihadists into the Government.

Instead of having Muslim Brotherhood sympathizers like Mohamed Elibiary serving on the U.S. Homeland Security Advisory Council (he “resigned” in Sept. 2014 under mysterious circumstances), and Muslim Brotherhood-linked individuals like Huma Abedin serving as the right-hand woman of Hillary Clinton, we need to bring in people who actually love America and want to protect it. We all know who these noble and courageous individuals are – and some of them are referenced in this article. The government must also bring in brave Muslim individuals who genuinely reject Jihad and empower them in propagating their anti-jihadist vision for Islam.

(P.S. Yes, there is an argument to be made that Islam cannot be Islam without Jihad. But the debate over this belongs in another forum. And whatever the answer, it does not mean that the effort to empower Muslims who want to make the anti-jihadist Islamic vision possible should not be made.)

9. Ridicule the Enemy.

Ridicule is a vicious and potent weapon. There is a baffling and shameful silence in our culture’s sphere of comedy, especially in Hollywood and our media, with regard to the myriad ingredients of Sharia and Jihad that merit at least a million hilarious satirical sketches.

Bill Maher, for whatever unappealing drawbacks he has in conservatives’ eyes, has set a bold standard in this respect in his Burka Fashion Show skit. American comedians need to start writing scripts that follow in Maher’s footsteps and Americans need to encourage and equip them to do so – and to also vigorously defend them from the attacks and slanders they will inevitably receive from totalitarian leftist and Islamic forces.

We must never underestimate the crippling effect of comedy on the totalitarian Mullahs of the world. Indeed, the contemptuous, snickering and roaring laughter of people, as they gaze at the pathetic rules and lives of Sharia’s gatekeepers, poses a danger to tyrants like no other.

Jamie Glazov is the editor of Frontpagemag.com. He holds a Ph.D. in History with a specialty in Russian, U.S. and Canadian foreign policy. He is the author of United in Hate, the host of the web-TV show, The Glazov Gang, and he can be reached at jamieglazov11@gmail.com.

Prager U Video: Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women

Posted on by

silence

Ayaan Hirsi Ali on why this matters more than ever.

Truth Revolt, June 27, 2016:

Are women oppressed in Muslim countries? What about in Islamic enclaves in the West? Are these places violating or fulfilling the Quran and Islamic law?

In Prager University’s newest video, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, an author and activist who was raised a devout Muslim, describes the human rights crisis of our time, asks why feminists in the West don’t seem to care, and explains why immigration to the West from the Middle East means this issue matters more than ever.

Check out the short video above. Transcript below:

Culture matters. It ‘s the primary source of social progress or regression. Nowhere do we see this more clearly than in the status of women. The Judeo-Christian culture — and perhaps a more apt word is civilization — has produced over time the law codes, language and material prosperity that have greatly elevated women’s status.

But this progress is not shared everywhere.

There are still hundreds of millions of people that live in a culture  — the Islamic, for instance — that takes female inferiority for granted. Until recently, these cultures — the Western and the Islamic — were, for the most part, separated. But that is changing. Dramatically so.

Large numbers of immigrant men from the Middle East, South Asia and various parts of Africa have brought a different set of values to the West, specifically Europe.  More than a million arrived in 2015 alone. More are on the way.

As a result, crimes against girls and women — groping, harassments, assaults and rape – have risen sharply. These crimes illustrate the stark difference between the Western culture of the victims and that of the perpetrators.

Let me be clear: not all immigrant men, or even most, indulge in sex attacks or approve of such attacks, but it’s a grave mistake to deny that the value system of the attackers is radically different from the value system of the West. In the West women are emancipated and sexually autonomous. Religiosity and sexual behavior or sexual restraint is determined by women’s individual wishes. The other value system is one in which women are viewed as either commodities (that is, their worth depends on their virginity), or on the level of a prostitute if they are guilty of public “immodesty” (wearing a short skirt for example).

I do not believe these value systems can coexist. The question is which value system will prevail. Unfortunately, this remains an open question.

The current situation in Europe is deeply troubling: not only are Muslim women within Europe subject to considerable oppression in many ways, such norms now risk spreading to non-Muslim women who face harassment from Muslim men.

One would think that Western feminists in the United States and Europe would be very disturbed by this obvious misogyny.  But sadly, with few exceptions, this does not appear to be the case.

Common among many Western feminists is a type of moral confusion, in which women are said to be oppressed everywhere and that this oppression, in feminist Eve Ensler’s words, is “exactly the same” around the world, in the West just as in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

To me, this suggests too much moral relativism and an inadequate understanding of Shariah law.  It is true that the situation for women in the West is not perfect, but can anyone truly deny that women enjoy greater freedom and opportunities in the United States, France and Finland than they do in Iran, Pakistan or Saudi Arabia?

Other feminists have also argued that non-Western women do not need “saving” and that any suggestion that they “need” help from Western feminists is insulting and condescending to non-Western women.

My perspective is a practical one: any efforts that help Muslim women — whether they live in the West or under Islamic governments should be encouraged. Every effort to pressure these governments to change unjust laws should be supported.

Western feminists — and female Western leaders — have a simple choice to make: either excuse the inexcusable, or demand reform in cultures and religious doctrines that continue to oppress women.

Nothing illustrates this better than what happened in Cologne, Germany on New Years Eve, 2015. That night, during the city’s traditional celebrations, numerous German women (467 at the last count) reported being sexually harassed or assaulted by men of North African and Arab origin. Within two months, 73 suspects had been identified — most of them from North Africa; 12 of them have been linked to sexual crimes. Yet, in response to the attacks, Cologne’s feminist Mayor Henriette Reker issued an “arm’s length” guideline to women. ” Just keep an arm’s length distance between you and a mob of Arab men, she advised Cologne’s female population, and you will be fine.

Mayor Reker’s comments underline the seriousness of the problem: a culture clash is upon us. The first step in resolving it is to unapologetically defend the values that have allowed women to flourish. Feminists with their organizations, networks and lobbying power need to be on the front lines on this battle. Their relevance depends on it. And so does the well being of countless women, Western and non-Western.

I’m Ayaan Hirsi Ali of Harvard University for Prager University.

SIGN THE PETITION! Demand that feminist activists fight for Muslim women! https://goo.gl/MmS1kq

***

Steve Coughlin drills down on the facts of Islamic law that Islam apologists either aren’t aware of or, in the case of stealth jihadists, purposely try to hide.

Responding to Muslim deceptions 1 Honour killings and innocence MRCTV:

Published on Jun 29, 2016 Vlad Tepes

Jihad: It’s Just This Simple

Posted on by
ORLANDO, FL - JUNE 12: Orlando police officers seen outside of Pulse nightclub after a fatal shooting and hostage situation on June 12, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. The suspect was shot and killed by police after 20 people died and 42 were injured. (Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)

ORLANDO, FL – JUNE 12: Orlando police officers seen outside of Pulse nightclub after a fatal shooting and hostage situation on June 12, 2016 in Orlando, Florida. The suspect was shot and killed by police after 20 people died and 42 were injured. (Photo by Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)

Unconstrained Analytics, by Stephen Coughlin, June 21, 2016:

In the world of ISIS jihadis, there are no forms to fill out to send in a check to get a membership card. This is not the Sierra Club. When ISIS declared to its target audience of followers in the West that this year’s Ramadan (June 5-July 5, 2016) would be a time of jihad, if they heard the call and agreed with it, under sharia law they had a duty to act. The Orlando shooter heard the call, agreed with it, and therefore had a duty to act, and acted.

It’s just this simple.

Why was the Orlando shooter an ISIS jihadi? Because he said so. He was ISIS because he declared as such when he acted. Why? Because once he agreed with ISIS’s call to jihad, he had a duty to act based on a common understanding of the doctrines of jihad in sharia — Islamic law.  Hence, it was a legal duty.

It is the legal nature of this duty that binds the ISIS call to action to the Orlando shooter’s rampage. It is a simplified and coherent form of command and control that delivers chaos to the target population while defying western predictive and behavioral models of the same. Paris, San Bernardino, and Orlando are sadly just the beginning.

One does not have to argue that all Muslims agree with such doctrines or that such interpretations are correct to demonstrate the truth of the proposition. Certainly groups like the Muslim Brotherhood, al-Qaeda, and ISIS recognize such duties, they appeal to them all the time. A common thread among these groups is the demand to re-establish Islamic law so that these duties can be given greater legal effect. Not only is this not complicated; it is really quite simple.

Counter-terror analysis that incorporates these duties into their threat analysis arrive at simplified understandings of the threat that delivers clarity and predictability in support of targetable decision-making capable of supporting strategies. Counter-terror analysis of Islamic-based terrorism that fails to recognize these duties is incoherent, incompetent and assures defeat.

When glossing over basic truths by reference to scientized behavioral models, news-cycle experts obscure the issue while diluting our ability to recognize the lethal simplicity of the actual threat. As with the violent extremism narrative generally, the very memes used to discuss Orlando distort the reality of the event being covered. The relationship between duties and jihadi acts was first explained when at CENTCOM in Doha, Qatar in 2005. The goal then was to explain how some Iraqis engaged in jihadi suicide attacks against fellow Muslims in Iraq in ways that distinguished between actors and non-actors in an all-Muslim forum. The explanation is easily transferable to attacks in the West today.

There was clear warning that ISIS would attack. Reviewing recent statements from ISIS and al Qaeda before Memorial Day, I warned of strong indicators of terror attacks. In a speech in May, the ISIS Spokesperson Muhammad declared that “Ramadan has come near, and it is the month of raids and jihad, the month of conquest.” He added that these “raids and jihads” should focus on innocent civilians.

Know that inside the lands of the belligerent crusaders, there is no sanctity of blood and no existence of those called “innocents” … Know that your targeting those who are called “civilians” is more beloved to us and more effective, as it is more harmful, painful, and a greater deterrent to them. So go forth, O muwahhidin everywhere! It might be that you attain great reward or even shahadah during Ramadan.

Wahhabis dislike the term Wahhabi, preferring the term “muwahhidin.” Both al-Qaeda and ISIS are “muwahhidin.” Attaining the “great reward” concerns a declared jihadi being killed in jihad.

Spring 2016 “Inspire” magazine cover

Spring 2016 “Inspire” magazine cover

Also in May, al-Qaeda released its latest issue of Inspire magazine where, in an article on economic warfare, the first example was of Muhammad ordering raids on caravans during Ramadan. Along with a section on bomb making, the Spring 2016 issue of Inspire reiterated al-Qaeda’s preferred strategy of individual jihad for attacks in the West:

Firstly: Definition of Lone Jihãd:

The first is Jihãd: It is to make every effort to strive, and to endure in fighting the enemy.

The second is fardy (Individually): and what is intended by Lone Jihad is that the brother should implement jihad, as we have defined, but individually and independently in the land of the kuffar without having to report to the Mujahideen leadership. And this individualism and independence is the main reason for it (Lone Jihad) to be termed as a Lone Wolf attack.

America is a Kuffar nation. In the definition, Inspire recognizes the weakness of “lone wolf” when pointing out that it separates the individual nature of the actor from the jihadi mission served. As far back as 2005, the West had warning of al-Qaeda/ISIS attacks in 2016 when Der Spiegel published “What al-Qaeda Really Wants” that disclosed al-Qaeda’s operational plan including “Phase 6”, the period when 2016 was identified as the year to initiate “total confrontation.” As important, al-Qaeda first announced that its Western strategy would be based on individual jihad in its first release of Inspire magazine back in 2010. For six years al-Qaeda has openly been priming the pump on individual jihad in America.

Written in English, Inspire is directed at prospects already in the West. It hardly matters to the individual jihad schema that the only time many of the actors identify with al-Qaeda or ISIS is when they act.

From target sets, to tactics, to timing, there should be no surprise concerning terror attacks like the ones just witnessed in Orlando. We have long since been put on notice.

The difference between understanding Islamic terror and not can be measured by the chasm that exists between individual jihad and lone wolf.

  • Individual jihad has roots reaching back to the time of Muhammad, gives rise to duties, which al Qaeda announced as its principle strategy. Lone Wolf is a constructed term our counter-terror community adopted to avoid using “individual jihad” when pretending to address Islamic terrorism under the rubric of violent extremism.
  • Individual jihad has a historic basis in shariah that is supported by the duty of jihad and has a doctrinal basis. Lone wolf facilitates violent extremism narratives that anticipate idiopathic or sui generis explanations grounded in trendy pop-psychology rationales. “He was crazy, what’s there to investigate?”
  • Pretending to serve as a proxy, lone wolf masks individual jihad.
  • Individual jihad requires analysts to know what they’re talking about while lone wolf simply expects a transient grasp of the narrative. One requires mastery of the subject matter, the other simply calls for the ability to mimic a common list of talking points.

It’s no accident that the counter-terror community adopted lone wolf at about the time al-Qaeda announced its new strategy. When you get down to it, the difference between individual jihad and lone wolf terrorism is the difference between winning and losing this war. In the face individual jihad, the sophistry of lone wolves, self-radicalization, and violent extremism, along with the faux activities it spawns, may best be understood as an entertaining form of disinformation.

First published in the Daily Caller in June 2016

Listen:

Stephen Coughlin on the Ben Shapiro show –  how the Obama administration has shut down the debate about Islamic terrorism and the role the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) plays in this.

Stephen Coughlin: The U.S. “Reporter’s Rolodex” of Islamic Advisers

Posted on by

SPJ-GuidelinesThis special edition of The Glazov Gang presents The Stephen Coughlin Moment with Stephen Coughlin, the co-founder of Unconstrained Analytics.org and the author of the new book,Catastrophic Failure.

Stephen discussed The U.S. “Reporter’s Rolodex” of Islamic Advisers, unveiling how the Muslim Brotherhood sets our media’s guidelines for discussing the war on terror.

Also see: